|
|
|
|
Published online before print
October 15, 2001, 10.1101/gr.200601 November 1, 2001 Genome Research, DOI: 10.1101/gr.200601
Vol. 11, Issue 11, 1842-1847, November 2001
LETTER
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Duplication of genes, giving rise to multigene families, has been a characteristic feature of the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. In the case of vertebrates, it has been proposed that an increase in gene number resulted from two rounds of duplication of the entire genome by polyploidization (the 2R hypothesis). In the most extensive test to date of this hypothesis, we compared gene numbers in homologous families and conducted phylogenetic analyses of gene families with two to eight members in the complete genomes of Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster and the available portion of the human genome. Although the human genome showed a higher proportion of recent gene duplications than the other animal genomes, the proportion of duplications after the deuterostome-protostome split was constant across families, with no peak of such duplications in four-member families, contrary to the expectation of the 2R hypothesis. A substantial majority (70.9%) of human four-member families and four-member clusters in larger families showed topologies inconsistent with two rounds of polyploidization in vertebrates.
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Evolutionary biologists have hypothesized that gene
duplication has played an important role in
evolution, particularly in eukaryotes, the genomes of which are
characterized by the presence of numerous multigene families (Ohno
1970
; Li 1983
; Lynch and Conery 2000
). By creating additional gene
copies, gene duplication has permitted the evolution of new protein
functions and thus is hypothesized to have played an important role in
adaptive evolution (Ohno 1970
; Hughes 1999a
). Consistent with this
hypothesis, there has been a tendency toward an increase in gene number
over the course of evolution, with an increased gene number being at
least roughly correlated with increased physiological complexity
(Miklos and Rubin 1996
).
Ohno (1970)
argued that tandem duplication is unlikely to lead to new
functional gene copies. As a consequence, he emphasized a role for
duplication of complete genomes by polyploidization in adaptive
evolution, especially in the case of vertebrates (Ohno 1970
). In
particular, the hypothesis that vertebrates underwent two rounds of
genome duplication (the 2R hypothesis) has been widely cited (Lundin
1993
; Sidow 1996
; Meyer and Schartl 1999
). Less frequently, a single
round of polyploidization (the 1R hypothesis) has been proposed (Guigo
et al. 1996
). Thousands of functional genes that have arisen by tandem
duplication are now known, thereby removing the initial rationale for
Ohno's emphasis on whole-genome duplication. In addition, several
recent studies involving phylogenetic analysis of selected gene
families have failed to support key predictions of the 2R hypothesis
(Hughes 1999b
; Martin 1999
, 2001
; Hughes et al. 2001
). However, because
the number of gene families examined in these studies has been small,
the possibility remains that more extensive analyses will reveal
support for this hypothesis (Skrabanek and Wolfe 1998
; Maka
).
The purpose of this study was to test these polyploidization hypotheses by a comparative analysis of patterns of gene duplication in vertebrate and invertebrate animal genomes. We used three approaches: (1) We compared numbers of genes in homologous families in the complete genomes of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, and the insect Drosophila melanogaster and in the available portion of the human (Homo sapiens) genome. (2) We constructed phylogenetic trees of two- to eight-member families in yeast, C. elegans, and Drosophila, and human and used branching order in the phylogenetic trees to time events of gene duplication relative to three major cladogenic events: the animal-fungus divergence; the coelomate-nematode divergence; and the deuterostome-protostome divergence (Fig. 1a). Because we used branching order to time gene duplication relative to these cladogenetic events (Fig. 1b) and because we used phylogenetic methods that do not assume a constant rate of evolution, our conclusions were not dependent on the assumption of a molecular clock or on the accuracy of divergence time estimates either from molecular data or from the fossil record. In addition, in the case of four-member human families, we tested for the consistency of the topology with that expected after two rounds of genome duplication (Fig. 1c,d). (3)
|
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Homologous Family Size Ratios
The distributions of homologous family size ratios between the three
animal genomes and yeast were all very similar (Table 1). In pairwise comparisons among these
ratios, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test was used to test the
similarity of the two distributions. The hypothesis of an identical
distribution could not be rejected in the comparison of
C.elegans:yeast and Drosophila:yeast ratios. However,
the hypothesis of identical distributions was rejected when the
distributions of C. elegans: yeast and Drosophila:
Yeast ratios were compared with that of human:yeast ratios (Table 1). The most striking difference between the former two distributions and
that of human:yeast was the lower proportion of families, with a
1:1 ratio in the latter (Table 1). There was a highly significant
difference between the distribution of C. elegans: Drosophila ratios and that of
human:Drosophila ratios (Table 1). Most of the difference
between these two ratios could be attributed to much greater numbers
of families with ratios of 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 in the
human:Drosophila distribution than in the C. elegans:Drosophila distribution (Table 1). Although
advocates of the 2R hypothesis frequently state that many gene
families in human have four times as many members as in
Drosophila (Sidow 1996
; Meyer and Schartl 1999
), in our data,
the percentage of familes having this ratio in the
human:Drosophila comparison was quite low (4.9%; Table 1).
|
Interestingly, 1375 families shared between human and Drosophila included only one human gene and one or more Drosophila genes; this total represents 49.8% of families shared between these two species (Table 1). Further, 1180 (42.7%) of families included a single gene in both human and Drosophila. The high proportion of single-gene families in human is very hard to explain on either the 1R or the 2R hypothesis, as both hypotheses require huge numbers of gene deletions after polyploidization to return to a single gene per family.
Timing of Gene Duplications
The human genome differed from that of Drosophila in having significantly lower proportions of gene duplication events in two- to eight-member families that could be dated by a significant internal branch prior to the animal-fungus divergence, the coelomate-nematode divergence, or the deuterostome-protostome divergence (Fig. 2). By contrast, the proportions of genes that could be dated prior to the animal-fungus divergence or the coelomate-nematode divergence did not differ significantly between Drosophila and C. elegans (Fig. 2).
|
In both C. elegans and Drosophila genomes, there was a significant nonuniformity among family size classes with respect to the proportion of duplications that could be dated prior to the coelomate-nematode divergence (Fig. 3). In both of these species, two- to three-member families included the highest proportion of duplications that could be dated prior to the coelomate-nematode divergence, whereas the proportion was lower in four-member families and lower still in five- to eight-member families (Fig. 3). By contrast, in the human genome, the proportions of duplications that could be dated prior to the coelomate-nematode divergence was remarkably constant across two- to three-member families, four-member families, and eight-member families (Fig. 3). In neither Drosophila nor human was there significant nonuniformity among family size classes with respect to the proportion of duplications that could be dated prior to the deuterostome-protostome divergence (Fig. 3).
|
Topology in Four-Member Families
For four-member families in human and Drosophila,
topologies of trees were categorized as follows: (1) supporting
duplication of at least one gene pair prior to the
protostome-deuterostome divergence; (2) supporting duplication after
the deuterostome-protostome divergence and having a topology of the
form (AB) (CD) (Fig. 1c); and (3) supporting duplication after the
deuterostome-protostome divergence and having a topology of the form
(A) (BCD) (Fig. 1d). In the case of the human genome, only category 2 supports the 2R hypothesis (Hughes 1999b
). In the case of the human
genome, 32 of 92 four-member families for which the phylogeny
resolved the topology showed a topology supporting duplication
of one or more genes prior to the deuterostome-protostome
divergence, and, in 25 of these families, the relevant internal branch
received significant support (Table 2). In
38 of the remaining families, the topology was of the form (A) (BCD),
and, in 17 of these families, the internal branch establishing this
topology received significant support (Table 2). Thus, 70 of 92 human
four-member families (76.1%) showed topologies different from that
predicted by the 2R hypothesis (Table 2).
|
Likewise, in four-gene clusters within five to eight-member families,
the (A) (BCD) topology occurred more frequently than (AB)(CD) (Table
2). Of 42 such clusters in which the topology was resolved, 25 (59.5%)
showed topologies inconsistent with the 2R hypothesis (Table 2). Thus,
of a total of 134 resolved four-member phylogenies, 95 (70.9%) were
not consistent with the 2R hypothesis. Similar results were reported
for a smaller number of families by the International Human Genome
Sequencing Consortium (2001)
.
Interestingly, the patterns seen in Drosophila were quite similar to those seen in humans. In Drosophila 16 of 22 four-member families for which the topology was resolved (72.7%) showed topologies different from that predicted by the 2R hypothesis. Thus these results suggest that the hypothesis of two rounds of genome duplication is no more likely to be true of vertebrates than of Drosophila.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Although the exact number of genes in the human genome remains to be
determined, vertebrate genomes clearly contain more genes than those of
Drosophila and C. elegans (Bork and Copley 2001
). Consistent with the larger gene number in humans, our results showed
that a lower proportion of gene duplications in humans than in
Drosophila could be dated prior to the
protostome-deuterostome divergence (Fig. 2). Thus, as expected, more
gene duplications have occurred in the human lineage than in the
Drosophila lineage since their last common ancestor. A number
of authors have attributed the increase in gene number to one round
(the 1R hypothesis) or two rounds (the 2R hypothesis) of genome
duplication by polyploidization early in vertebrate history (Lundin
1993
; Sidow 1996
). Alternatively, it is been suggested that multiple
independent gene duplications would be an alternative mechanism for
increased gene numbers in vertebrates (Hughes et al. 2001
)
Our study provided no support for either the 1R or the 2R hypothesis. Because the human proteome available to us is not yet complete, our results must be considered preliminary. Even if the available human proteome represents only 80%-90% of the total, it seems unlikely that the picture will change substantially with additional data.
Comparison of human:Drosophila and C. elegans:Drosophila homologous family size ratios revealed
significantly different distributions (Table 1). The difference seemed
to lie mainly in the much higher proportion of families falling in the
2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 in the human:Drosophila
distribution than in the C. elegans:Drosophila distribution (Table 1). However, contrary to the expectation of the 2R
hypothesis, the proportion of families with a 4:1 ratio in the
human:Drosophila comparison was considerably lower than the
proportion with a 2:1 ratio or that with 3:1 ratio. Indeed, <5% of genes families shared between human and Drosophila
showed a 4:1 ratio, contrary to the concept of a four-to-one rule
proposed by advocates of the 2R hypothesis (Meyer and Schartl 1999
).
On the 2R hypothesis, we might expect to see evidence of a major burst of duplication in four-member gene families of vertebrates after the deuterostome-protostome divergence but not in families with more or fewer members. Contrary to this expectation, the proportion of duplications in human gene families that could be dated prior to the deuterostome-protostome divergence was remarkably constant across family size categories (Fig. 3).
Furthermore, a substantial majority of phylogenetic trees of
four-member families and of four-member clusters within five to
eight-member families revealed topologies inconsistent with the 2R
hypothesis (Table 2). These results were consistent with those of a
previous analysis using a smaller number of families (Hughes 1999b
).
Interestingly, the topologies of human gene families were no more
supportive of two rounds of genome duplication than were those of
Drosophila gene families (Table 2).
Some authors have taken the existence in four separate chromosomal
locations of clusters of paralogous genes belonging to multiple gene
families as evidence in favor of the 2R hypothesis. In the human
genome, the most widely cited such cases involve chromosomes 1, 6, 9, and 19 (Kasahara et al. 1997
) and chromosomes 2, 7, 12, and 17 (Lundin
1993
; International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2001
). However,
the existence of such clusters can be taken as support for the 2R
hypothesis only if phylogenetic analysis shows that the gene pairs
involved were duplicated simultaneously early in vertebrate history
(Hughes 1998
). This prediction has been falsified by
phylogenetic analyses of the gene families in both the clusters on
chromosomes 1, 6, 9, and 19 (Hughes 1998
; Yeager and Hughes 1999
) and
those on chromosomes 2, 7, 12, and 17 (Hughes et al. 2001
). In
both of these cases, the genes involved were duplicated at widely
different times over the history of life (Hughes 1998
; Yeager and
Hughes 1999
; Hughes et al. 2001
). Venter et al. (2001)
, using a liberal
criterion of homology, identified 1077 potentially duplicated regions
in the human genome, each containing at least three pairs of
duplicate genes. Application of phylogenetic analysis to all of the
gene families in these regions will provide a further test of both
the 2R and 1R hypotheses.
It might be argued that our results are consistent with the 1R
hypothesis rather than the 2R hypothesis. However, our results are
problematic for the 1R hypothesis as well. A high proportion (42.7%)
of families shared between human and Drosophila were found to
be represented by a single human gene (Table 1). Li et al. (2001)
noted
the large number of singletons in the human genome, and our results
show that singletons also constitute a high proportion of the gene
families humans share with Drosophila. Furthermore, in 85.7%
of families, the human:Drosophila ratio of gene number was
<4:1. Given these data, if early vertebrates underwent even a
single polyploidization event, it must have been followed by deletion
of the vast majority of duplicated genes. It is often assumed that
polyploidization, because it duplicates numerous genes simultaneously,
is a more parsimonious explanation of an increase in gene number than
multiple independent events of tandem duplication, but this is not
necessarily the case (Hughes et al. 2001
). In the case of vertebrates,
the numbers of events of gene deletion that must be assumed under
either the 1R or the 2R hypothesis far exceeds the number of events of
tandem duplication that must be assumed if polyploidization is not
evoked. Therefore, the hypothesis that the increase in gene number in
vertebrates occurred as a result of multiple independent gene
duplications, as well as occasional duplication of chromosomal blocks,
is far more parsimonious given our results than any hypothesis invoking polyploidization.
| |
METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Sequences and Homologous Families
Sequences of proteome members were obtained from the following
resources: for yeast, http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces; for C. elegans http://www.sanger.ac.uk /C_elegans (Wormpep
27); for Drosophila,
ftp://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/edgp/sequence_sets; and for human,
the publicly available IPI database (International Human Genome
Sequencing Consortium 2001
) from http://genome.cse.ucsc.edu. The
human database included known and predicted 31,778 proteins (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2001
). Using the
BLASTP program (Altschul et al. 1997
) to search for homology at the amino acid sequence level, we identified all shared families in pairwise comparisons between yeast, C. elegans,
Drosophila, and human proteomes. To ensure that only genes
homologous throughout their length were used, rather than those showing
homology in only one or a few domains, we used a conservative Expect
(E) value of 10-50. We identified 557 families shared by C. elegans and yeast, 640 shared by
Drosophila and yeast, 716 shared by human and yeast, 1341 shared by C. elegans and Drosophila, and 2761 shared
by human and Drosophila. To compare family size in the
different genomes, we examined the frequency distributions of the
ratios of homologous family sizes for the following comparisons:
C. elegans:yeast; Drosophila:yeast; human:yeast; C. elegans:Drosophila; and human: Drosophila. We
refer to these ratios as homologous family size ratios.
Phylogenetic Analyses
We conducted phylogenetic analyses of two- to eight-member families
in the three animal species. For each species, we included only
families for which at least two sequences were available from one or
more of the other two animal species or from yeast. We constructed 1330 such phylogenies (238 for C. elegans, 313 for
Drosophila, and 779 for human). Phylogenetic trees were
constructed by two methods: (1) the neighbor-joining (NJ) method
(Saitou and Nei 1987
) based on the uncorrected proportion (p) of amino
acid difference; (2) the quartet maximum-likelihood (ML) method
(Strimmer and von Haeseler 1996
) as implemented in
TREEPUZZLE 5.0, using the JTT (Jones et al. 1992
) model of
amino acid evolution and assuming that rate variation among sites
followed a gamma distribution. NJ based on p is a simple method making
minimal assumptions, whereas ML assumes an explicit evolutionary model (Nei and Kumar 2000
). In the present case, the two methods yielded essentially identical results; thus, only the ML results are presented in the following. All trees were treated as unrooted, and no attempt was made to assign an outgroup to root any tree.
In each phylogeny, we timed each gene duplication event relative to the
animal-fungus divergence, the coelomate-nematode divergence, and the
deuterostome-protostome divergence (Fig. 1a) on the basis of the tree
topology. This process is illustrated in Figure 1b. In the hypothetical
family illustrated, there are two human genes (A and B; Fig. 1b). Given
the topology of the tree, assuming that there is significant support
for the internal branch (indicated by arrow), we can conclude that
these two human genes duplicated at least prior to the
deuterostome-protostome divergence. We can make this conclusion
independently of how the tree might be rooted. In the ML analyses, we
concluded that a branch was significantly supported if it was supported
in 95% or more of 10,000 puzzling steps; this represents a highly
conservative test for significance of an internal branch (Strimmer and
von Haeseler 1996
). The 1330 trees analyzed included 2790 gene
duplication events (463 in C. elegans, 567 in
Drosophila, and 779 in human); we tallied the numbers of these
for which there was significant support for gene duplication prior to
each of the three cladogenetic events (Fig. 1a).
In four-member families in vertebrates, only one of the possible
topologies is consistent with the 2R hypothesis (Hughes 1999b
); this is a topology showing two clusters of two sequences, designated (AB) (CD) (Fig. 1c). Obviously, if one of more duplications in a
vertebrate four-member family occurred prior to the
deuterostome-protostome divergence, that family does not support
the 2R hypothesis (Hughes 1999b
). Likewise, even if all genes
duplicated within the vertebrates, a topology in which one
vertebrate gene falls outside the others, designated (A) (BCD)
(Fig. 1d), is inconsistent with the 2R hypothesis (Hughes 1999b
).
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This research was supported by grants to A.L.H. from the National Institutes of Health and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Corresponding author.
E-MAIL austin{at}biol.sc.edu; FAX (803) 777-4002.
Article published on-line before print: Genome Res., 10.1101/gr.200601.
Article and publication are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.200601.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|

where's the evidence?
Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
8:
694-700[CrossRef][Medline].Received June 14, 2001; accepted in revised form August 7, 2001.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. W. W. Brouwer, O. P. Kuipers, and S. A. F. T. v. Hijum The relative value of operon predictions Brief Bioinform, April 17, 2008; (2008) bbn019v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Brilli, R. Fani, and P. Lio Current trends in the bioinformatic sequence analysis of metabolic pathways in prokaryotes Brief Bioinform, January 1, 2008; 9(1): 34 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Charaniya, S. Mehra, W. Lian, K. P. Jayapal, G. Karypis, and W.-S. Hu Transcriptome dynamics-based operon prediction and verification in Streptomyces coelicolor Nucleic Acids Res., December 18, 2007; 35(21): 7222 - 7236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Nakatani, H. Takeda, Y. Kohara, and S. Morishita Reconstruction of the vertebrate ancestral genome reveals dynamic genome reorganization in early vertebrates Genome Res., September 1, 2007; 17(9): 1254 - 1265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Yellaboina, K. Goyal, and S. C. Mande Inferring genome-wide functional linkages in E. coli by combining improved genome context methods: Comparison with high-throughput experimental data Genome Res., April 1, 2007; 17(4): 527 - 535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. H. Bergman, K. D. Passalacqua, P. C. Hanna, and Z. S. Qin Operon Prediction for Sequenced Bacterial Genomes without Experimental Information Appl. Envir. Microbiol., February 1, 2007; 73(3): 846 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. T. Tran, P. Dam, Z. Su, F. L. Poole II, M. W. W. Adams, G. T. Zhou, and Y. Xu Operon prediction in Pyrococcus furiosus Nucleic Acids Res., January 12, 2007; 35(1): 11 - 20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Dam, V. Olman, K. Harris, Z. Su, and Y. Xu Operon prediction using both genome-specific and general genomic information Nucleic Acids Res., January 12, 2007; 35(1): 288 - 298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Spirin, M. S. Gelfand, A. A. Mironov, and L. A. Mirny A metabolic network in the evolutionary context: Multiscale structure and modularity PNAS, June 6, 2006; 103(23): 8774 - 8779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. P. C. Rocha Inference and Analysis of the Relative Stability of Bacterial Chromosomes Mol. Biol. Evol., March 1, 2006; 23(3): 513 - 522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Okuda, T. Katayama, S. Kawashima, S. Goto, and M. Kanehisa ODB: a database of operons accumulating known operons across multiple genomes Nucleic Acids Res., January 1, 2006; 34(suppl_1): D358 - D362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Boyer, A. Morgat, L. Labarre, J. Pothier, and A. Viari Syntons, metabolons and interactons: an exact graph-theoretical approach for exploring neighbourhood between genomic and functional data Bioinformatics, December 1, 2005; 21(23): 4209 - 4215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Nei Selectionism and Neutralism in Molecular Evolution Mol. Biol. Evol., December 1, 2005; 22(12): 2318 - 2342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. S. Makarova, Y. I. Wolf, S. L. Mekhedov, B. G. Mirkin, and E. V. Koonin Ancestral paralogs and pseudoparalogs and their role in the emergence of the eukaryotic cell Nucleic Acids Res., August 16, 2005; 33(14): 4626 - 4638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. R. Sakharkar, M. K. Sakharkar, C. Verma, and V. T. K. Chow Comparative study of overlapping genes in bacteria, with special reference to Rickettsia prowazekii and Rickettsia conorii Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, May 1, 2005; 55(3): 1205 - 1209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Jacob, R. Sasikumar, and K. N. R. Nair A fuzzy guided genetic algorithm for operon prediction Bioinformatics, April 15, 2005; 21(8): 1403 - 1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. N. Price, K. H. Huang, E. J. Alm, and A. P. Arkin A novel method for accurate operon predictions in all sequenced prokaryotes Nucleic Acids Res., February 8, 2005; 33(3): 880 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Wang, J. D. Trawick, R. Yamamoto, and C. Zamudio Genome-wide operon prediction in Staphylococcus aureus Nucleic Acids Res., July 13, 2004; 32(12): 3689 - 3702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. B.L. Alkema, B. Lenhard, and W. W. Wasserman Regulog Analysis: Detection of Conserved Regulatory Networks Across Bacteria: Application to Staphylococcus aureus Genome Res., July 1, 2004; 14(7): 1362 - 1373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Friedman and A. L. Hughes Two Patterns of Genome Organization in Mammals: the Chromosomal Distribution of Duplicate Genes in Human and Mouse Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2004; 21(6): 1008 - 1013. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Christoffels, E. G. L. Koh, J.-m. Chia, S. Brenner, S. Aparicio, and B. Venkatesh Fugu Genome Analysis Provides Evidence for a Whole-Genome Duplication Early During the Evolution of Ray-Finned Fishes Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2004; 21(6): 1146 - 1151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Chen, Z. Su, P. Dam, B. Palenik, Y. Xu, and T. Jiang Operon prediction by comparative genomics: an application to the Synechococcus sp. WH8102 genome Nucleic Acids Res., April 19, 2004; 32(7): 2147 - 2157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Karaoz, T. M. Murali, S. Letovsky, Y. Zheng, C. Ding, C. R. Cantor, and S. Kasif Whole-genome annotation by using evidence integration in functional-linkage networks PNAS, March 2, 2004; 101(9): 2888 - 2893. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. M. Teshima and H. Innan The Effect of Gene Conversion on the Divergence Between Duplicated Genes Genetics, March 1, 2004; 166(3): 1553 - 1560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Vandepoele, W. De Vos, J. S. Taylor, A. Meyer, and Y. Van de Peer Major events in the genome evolution of vertebrates: Paranome age and size differ considerably between ray-finned fishes and land vertebrates PNAS, February 10, 2004; 101(6): 1638 - 1643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||